This topic contains 12 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 5 years, 10 months ago.
I have had a look at page 72 of the ILR specification and the migration table.
We are on a NEET contract and a lot of our learners are at School but at risk of NEET. In 2011/2012 we put these as as Employment Status Code 07 and LOU as 99 not unemployed. This was agreed and uploaded well.
Due to the nature of our funding learners continue between academic years. In 2012/2013 Employment Status Code migrates from 07 to 11. 99 migrates to nothing! Possible solutions we have come up is:
14 and 15 year olds we put as ES = 98, PEI = 1, and RON = 1.
16, 17 & 18 we put as ES=98 and PEI = 1. And you have to guess they are NEET??
Has anyone delivering NEET contracts had the same problem and what did you do?September 7, 2012 at 8:34 am #165
Seems that the combination of Employment Status and PEI is used to determine NEET – according to ILR spec a NEET should be coded as unemployed (either looking for work (11) or not looking for work (12) an PEI should NOT be set.September 7, 2012 at 8:47 am #166
Problem is if you put 11 or 12 then you have to put a LOU of either 1 2 3 4 5. What does 99 convert to?September 7, 2012 at 9:19 am #167
Depending upon your NEET contract it is the ESF local project number that allows tracking of the type of activity ESF being delivering – 14-19 NEET or workplace learning.
This together with the codes you have entered for ES, PEI and RON identifies which NEET cohort the learner belongs to (ES=98 then 14-19 NEET contract).
If it’s a 14-19 NEET contract all are considered to be so.
I think you are correct in that LOU 99 converts to nothing returned.
If it went through the LIS ok it’s probably correct.
RegardsSeptember 7, 2012 at 9:39 am #168
The contract is an ESF 14-19 NEET contract. So the ESF local project number makes them all NEET.
I have had a look at the ILR specification for 11/12 and it did not give the LOU options 99 or 98 but we were using it and uploading succesfully. So I think 99 and 98 might still work and it is the conversion by our MIS system that has removed the 99 and 98 and left blank and so can’t upload.September 7, 2012 at 9:54 am #169
The reason why ES 98 will not work:
As Employment status records are required for all Apprenticeship and ESF funded learners of all ages and if any of the learners learning aims are ESF funded, there must be an Employment status record then code 11 (Not in paid employment and looking for work) would seem to be required for your cohort of learners.
To return codes that imply you do not know the employment status or how long they have been unemployed does not seem to be consistent with ESF NEET provision.
RegardsSeptember 7, 2012 at 10:40 am #170
Ok, I have a learner 14 years old who is not turning up to school, we put him on a NEET course. What codes do I use 11 and 1 (so we have a 14 year old unemployed person?) Even though the earliest you can be unemployed is 16?September 7, 2012 at 11:17 am #171
Are you confusing the definition of unemployed with the ILR field question for ES which requires 10, 11, 12 or 98, you know the learners circumstances so it is not 98 or 10 that leaves 11 or 12 depending upon are they looking for work.September 7, 2012 at 12:22 pm #172
I agree we need to put 11 or 12.
Now I have put 11 and 12 in for ES.
This now means I MUST put a value in for LOU.
What value do I put in for the LOU of someone who is 14 years old who is not turning up to school, we put him on a NEET course.
What codes do I use for the LOU (LENGTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT) (so we have a 14 year old unemployed person?) Even though the earliest you can be unemployed is 16?
Do I put LOU=1 as not being unemployed is less than 6 months?
Can you still put 99 in for LOU? Can you still put 98 in for LOU?
These codes existed when uploaded in 2011 2012 but were not in the ILR specification so does it mean they exist this year and are not in the ILR specification????????????September 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm #173
From the validation rules
If any of the learner’s learning aims are ESF funded, there must be an Employment status record where the Date employment status applies is on or before the start date of the ESF funded aim.
If the aim start date is before 1 August 2012, the Employment status on the Learning aim start date, can be ‘Not known/not provided for ESF funded aims only.
The rule ESMType_08:
If Employment status is ‘Not in paid employment’ then the Length of unemployment must be returned if the Date employment status applies to is on or after 1 August 2012 does not apply to ESF funding.
So the problem is:
1. You must have an ES record.
2. If Date employment status applies to before 1 August 2012 the ES can be 98
3. If the Date employment status applies to is on or after 1 August 2012 the ES cannot be 98 but if 11 or 12 are used the LOU need not be entered.
I think the validation rules will cater for your learners if all aims are ESF funded.
The Suggestion is:
1. ES=98 if started last year, 11 or 12 if started this year (LOU not required)
Get back to me with the error code if any learners fail to go through the LIS
RegardsSeptember 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm #174
We have put ES=11 and LOU blank under the ESF local project number and get the following error on the OLDC:
If Employment status is ‘Not in paid employment’ then the Length of unemployment must be returned
I have uploaded some as ES=98 PEI=1 (16-18) and they upload. And ES=98 PEI=1 RON=1 (14-15) and they upload.
Looking at the guidance it looks like ES=98 and PEI=1 is the one to do as it says on page 81 of the ILR Specification that PEI – Previous Education Indicator – “To be used in conjuction with the employment status data to identify learners who were NEET before starting learning.” So ES=98 and PEI=1 identifies they are NEET according to page 81 of the guidance and does upload without an error. Granted the guidance is a bit confusing as it says on page 72 all NEET should be 11 or 12. But then why have the RON code? Who knows????????????September 11, 2012 at 3:17 pm #175
The Issue with Validation Rule ESMType_04 is documented in the following.
This rule will be removed in a future version of LIS (when ?), and as a workaround you may have to set ES to 98.
They have made it that complicated that even they cannot keep up.September 12, 2012 at 6:43 am #176
An FAQ has now been added to the information authority website. This can be found at: http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/faqs/2012-13_faqs/#11.September 14, 2012 at 1:41 pm #177
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.